The Pentagon adopts a fairy dust and rainbows scenario to justify producing sexy weapons they want. For example, one thing we learned in WW2 is that tank armor must be sloped, generally at 30 degrees and it must be thick enough to withstand a direct hit from both fielded weapons and potential weapons. But the army had been sold (by contractors) on the Future Combat Systems notion that each vehicle could do simply amazing things. But to put even a fraction of the amazing potential and still have them fit on a C5A the vehicles had to be small, light and have vertical sides.
I asked an Army officer in charge of our portion of the development about the armor and sloped sides. He said, “we’ll have complete control of the battle, including air dominance and ground control out beyond the range of any enemy weapon big enough to take out a vehicle.” (It sounded like he’d memorized a talking point.)
That was before IED’s and the merging of the battlefield with the civilian population. Even Hummers were getting their crews killed and in some respects they were more robust than the FCS vehicles we were designing.
It was pure fantasy. But the program continued and billions of dollars were wasted. But the important thing was accomplished. Those dollars transferred from the government to industry. Industry kicked money back to politicians. Military men got to add to their resumes and to direct money to companies that they would later work for when they retired. Mission accomplished.
I see the F-35 as another FCS. And, the first time an F-35 shoots down a civilian target that it fired at beyond visual range the president will sign a new ROI specifying that the pilot must have a visual on the target before he fires. When that happens, say goodbye to the F-35.
The issue, though, is not just one of pursuing new innovations in weaponry. Expecting modern warfare to play out the way the Pentagon plans is a risk that has to be addressed head-on.
The Pentagon must plan for the worst day of war, not the best."